The AP walked right into a buzz saw
By John Amato Monday Jun 16, 2008 9:20pmI'm a little behind this story, but yes, the AP acted like goons when they threatened the Drudge Retort with a lawsuit over fair use. I would imagine it was some of their lawyers hunting around the Internets to see if any websites were copying their material. Unfortunately, they got a little trigger happy and attacked a blogger for nothing.
The A.P. took an unusually strict position against quotation of its work, sending a letter to the Drudge Retort asking it to remove seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words.
On Saturday, The A.P. retreated. Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P., said in an interview that the news organization had decided that its letter to the Drudge Retort was "heavy-handed" and that The A.P. was going to rethink its policies toward bloggers. The quick about-face came, he said, because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet
Jamie emailed this story over when it first hit on Slashdot, but I didn't have a chance to post this yet. I've always been treated fairly by the AP so it was surprising to see them act like this, but give someone a new internet tool to play with and you wind up with idiotic threats. As KOS said earlier they now are backtracking a little bit:
The AP is going to lecture bloggers about what the "spirit of the internet" is all about? Laughable. And the AP certainly doesn't have free reign to rewrite copyright law on its own. Fair use provisions.
Hahahaha, OK, sure. Good luck with that, AP, I think it's really about trying to save face on their part at this time, but they walked right into a buzz saw. Look what they got themselves into.
Duncan adds this...
More to the point, as Glaser realizes in an update, the AP is full of sh*t here and there's nothing to talk about. If they want to take this to court, they can, but there are no guidelines to be negotiated here. They don't write copyright law or get to determine its precise boundaries. It isn't for them to determine what is legal fair use and what isn't.
Lots of blogs are calling for boycotts of AP content. Not me. I'm going to keep using it. I will copy and paste as many words as I feel necessary to make my points and that I feel are within bounds of copyright law (and remember, I've got a JD and specialized in media law, so I know the rules pretty well). And I will keep doing so if I get an AP takedown notice (which I will make a big public show of ignoring). And then, either the AP -- an organization famous for taking its members work without credit -- will either back down and shut the hell up, or we'll have a judge resolve the easiest question of law in the history of copyright jurisprudence.
I think all bloggers, including myself will take them on if it comes to that. Is that what they really want? And Steve Hansell at The NY Times says that bloggers got a little hot headed.
A number of bloggers I respect a great deal didn’t find the A.P.’s openness to their ideas to be enough and have declared war on it. As someone who is both a blogger and an employee of a mainstream news organization, I worry that this hotheaded response is part of what gives blogs a bad name.
He doesn't get the fact that a bloggers would be worried about being attacked by a huge corporation. No, that wouldn't upset Steve. Yea, if he got that legal notice and didn't have the backing of the NY Times---how he would feel? Cernig has more...
The Media Bloggers Association is going to talk with them, but bloggers will be bloggers....
Please add more in the thread below since I've been posting all day and haven't kept up with the story....
Login or Register to post comments.
Half of what i see in Blogs is from some other source, that's how information is passed. So what, the information they print is just for going in the eyeholes and it can never go anywhere else? Then what the hell .................... oh, nevermind. I'm not saying that a la Emily Latella, it just ...................nevermind.
Shit. The AP uses so much uncredited material it's obscene.
Hell, that's their niche. They INVENTED News Aggregation!!!
For them to file suit is just ridiculous.
Meanwhile, the REAL NEWS go unnoticed in the MSM::
Iraqi treaty flies under the radar of American media
Published: Friday, 6 June, 2008 @ 9:33 PM in Beirut (GMT+2)
By Raghida Dergham, Al Hayat
New York - So remarkable is the neglect of the draft security treaty between the US and Iraq in the American media and by the US presidential candidates, at a time when this treaty has recently been a lead issue in Arab and Iranian media.
keep in mind that murdiKKK is now on the board as AP.
case closed.
Apparently the AP's prices for quotations have been found. The first four words are free!
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080617/0740561432.shtml
IANAL, but long quotes from AP articles decreases the odds of my going and reading the same from a source that actually pays the AP (unlike you). Therefore, it seems to me, you have been violating the "fair use" provision.
But that might just be me.
Please note that I am only commenting on something I have no qualifications for commenting on. As to whether I like the long quotes, the answer is yes.
john, sphinx is back. read her this morning on last night's open.
gal still does her homework.
RawStory is reporting that the douchebags at AP think they can charge $12.50 for quoting 5 words! Those thieving has-beens are frigging history.
Well, here's the deal:
The AP is aging, and not gracefully. Like a lot of print media, they don't have a reasonable or sensible plan to expand into this century. Instead of going outside the box a bit, they went with their first knee-jerk reaction: try to charge money and get pissed when people don't pay them.
Bit like the RIAA, come to think of it . . . the internet is a matter of "evolve or die."
Shame. The AP was nice, in its day.
A suggestion to the AP. Perhaps they should become more aware of All Internet Traditions.
Back in April the AP announced they were changing the pricing they charge member news media to publish AP articles. At first it was thought it would be an increase of fees but in the end they cut fees for 2009. The incident caused the major papers in Ohio at least to form their own cooperative to share their stories with wach other. During an interview on NPR, Susan Goldberg, editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer talked about the arrangement:
So it seems the AP has been trying to squeeze more cash from everyone. I wonder when readers will be charged for reading the stories....
AP tried to squash the impeachment of Bush last week with it's negative reporting. I no longer trust its reports. Cooperatives need to be formed to break up the monopoly, this can be a good thing that will bring more honesty and diversity in news at long last.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory @ 4:
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ in Chiang Mai @ 1:
You see it as information but they view it as a commodity. I understand that viewpoint. It's kind of sad to me that they can't look at that as a strength. I regularly read links to the full version. I never would have if I hadn't see it at places like this and others. It seems to me the advertising model ought to make that work. They would be competing to see how many people would reference their work and link to it. I would think that would be a good thing but in the world of up is down and down is up I guess this is the way it works.
Interesting coming from a news organization that commonly uses leads from blogs. Like their most recent one from my blog:
CEO pay chugs up in '07 despite economy
Here is AP's reporting yesterday:
Rick Wagoner, chief executive of General Motors Corp., announced earlier this month the company had to close four plants that make trucks and SUVs because of lagging demand as fuel prices soar. That followed the posting of a $39 billion loss in 2007, a year when its stock price fell by about 19 percent, without adjusting for dividends.
And Wagoner? His pay rose 64 percent, to $15.7 million.
And here is mine from 12 days ago:
....Rick Wagoner's situation.How many babies does this guy eat for breakfast while mismanaging one of the bedrock industries of America? What does he get for failing to show a profit for four years and driving the stock price down from $54/share in 2004 to $17 today?
$14,415,914
Steve Hansell at The NY Times is calling bloggers uppity in corporate-speak. Hotheaded my arse. Do these people realize just how many bloggers there are? it reminds me of when the online radio stations went dark and scared the crap out of congress. these corporate monkeys need to be reminded of the power of the PEOPLE of this country. and of course the politicians as well.
I'm not sure I like the arrogant tone of Koz, or anyone else included in that buzz saw. AP must be aware that what ever they think they can come up with, will set a standard that will be pared down in the future by other news services. I've included my own coverage from a few days ago.
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/06/associated-press-enemy-of-blo...
dexxjones @ 16:
That's half the problem; They dont think that we are together, but in this medium, I can talk to a Southerner and a Nor'eastener, and we can co-oberate...
JTM @ 6:
Let's not forget the irony of CrooksAndLiars.com criticizing the "fair use." crooks and liars' bread and butter is copyright infringement. 3 minute long snippets from TV shows. Entire music videos. Paragraphs of articles.
And yet C&L has the gall to call AP "goons" for trying to protect their own stuff. Let's not forget that C&L has ads on this site and collects money - this is by any standard a commercial operation (even if they don't make very much money).
^ Hey, at least C&L is consistent. They're pro-piracy across the board. ;)
Remember when the NYTimes put up a firewall? I quit reading their articles. Now I read more articles than before, since they've taken the firewall down.
AP is stupid for trying to pull this crap. They are already on thin ice, credibility-wise.
I like to read a snippet from the article before I link through to the whole thing. Saves much time that way. In fact, I find it annoying to NOT have a little preview.
Bynrdskynrd @ 17:
Their solution to this is bandwidth contouring, they will throttle and degrade non approved sources at the ISP and carrier level.
Its interesting that at times when reading and posting at Crooks & Liars and other blogs, theres server problems and seemingly packet errors.
The big five MSM holding companies and their lackeys which includes the BIG internet tube carriers like AT&T, dont like Youtube et al and independent news sources and blog news sharing sites.
npxpn @ 20:
'They are on thin ice, my pedigree chums, and we shall be under it when it breaks!'
Larry Lessig @ 18:
Sorry to burst your bubble but C&L is fair use, as in archiving and political and social commentary.
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 23:
and embedding Youtube clips is only providing a link to an outside source.
Its not hosting any potential copyright offending material, and you will find that most music clips on Youtube are approved by the music industry these days, the video is sub broadcast quality, mono and watermarked / degraded.
Its reference material FOR passing around and generating buzz.
The people (who buy music) do go out and buy music they see and hear on the web, either as itunes downloads or on plastic disks.
I didn't realize bloggers had a bad name. I thought they were immensely popular. I guess if I were a mainstream journalist working in an environment --- the only one that exists -- where people regularly bitch and moan about bloggers I would know what a bad name bloggers have.
I wonder if the people in that environment know bad their own name has become. Hey, here's an idea! Maybe the MSM's own bad reputation explains why bloggers exist in the first place! OMG, do you think it could true???
http://papastraighttalk.blogspot.com/2008/06/associated-press-blindsidin...
This is just another example of the hilarious, preposterous writhing of a dying thing.
This isn't about fair use. It's about controlling information. A.P. is a member of the propagandists cartel. They don't want to lose control of propganda messages, and they don't want to be put in any kind of position in which they can be fact checked or have lies, ommissions, and disinformation countered on any kind of basis that is subject to mass distribution and readership. This was an attempt to stiffle national dialog and preserve the effectiveness of propganda, which only works if people don't or can't call BS.
Do ya think the penalties for filing false DMCA takedown notices will be enforced? I don't think so!
Larry Lessig @ 18:
Huh? Did I miss the part where CrooksAndLiars.com criticized fair use? I checked again and I still can't find it. Kindly point it out.
In fact, Hooray for C and L for keeping the boundaries of fair use out there as far as possible. Like nearly every other right we have that empowers the public in any way, attempts are almost constantly being made to erode it.
Yeah... how "ironic" that C and L doesn't "make very much money" by exploiting the right of fair use to its fullest, thereby depriving AP of... what exactly?
Ignore JTM. He's already back at the National Review chat room, high-fivin' his buddies. As for AP, they've already proven themselves to be tools of the Right, displayed by their public coffee 'n' donuts run for McCain, and the fact that the AP got first look at McCain's medical records. This wasn't about fair use; it was about intimidating the Left. Period. So, yes, the AP are "goons".
lol matt drudge is a blogger?...
This is what happens when Moonanites own a news resource.
Here in Santa Barbara, the local newspaper self destructed due to a crazed right-wing owner who fired union activists and those who questioned her politicization of the news. After all the decent editors and reporters quit or were fired, the content of the paper became 90% AP articles. It is no longer worth reading, as AP lacks credibility, and is usually one or two days later than the blogs. AP is basically filler, and if they start making it difficult or expensive to use their material, bloggers and others are simply going to ignore them, further marginalizing them. An earlier poster had it right, they are a service designed for print media who is not transitioning gracefully to online media. They will be extinct soon.
So the AP is going to negotiate/consult with the Media Bloggers Association to determine 'fair use?'
Who the hell is the MBA? Who is in the MBA? Why does the AP think they represent all bloggers?
They all have now buzzcuts?
http://www.mtv.com/onair/beavisandbutthead/images/flipbooks/meet_cast/bu...
Although I read blogs, I sense so much self-righteousness in the blogging community that's it's just...too much sometimes. You have to remember that very few bloggers actually do original reporting. Yes, they have broken some stories, but the bulk of what's written about has already been written by someone else, and that's someone's livelihood. And may I add that not all bloggers have pure motives, and not every person working for the MSM is part of some evil right-wing conspiracy. AP is made up of thousands of people all over the world. I don't like Wal-Mart, but I don't blame the people who work there. People have to make a living.
LG, I'm not sure what your point is. Most 'media' bloggers work at other jobs for a living and in their spare time write about what they have read in MSM outlets. We quote a small part of the article, link to it, and comment on it.
That's 'fair use' as defined by the law.
The fact that "AP is made up of thousands of people all over the world" has nothing to do with the AP's attorneys filing DMCA lawsuits against us. These lawyers aren't Wal-Mart workers, they are filing these suits on behalf of the AP bigwigs.
Oh, and sue me for quoting your whole comment.
Get it? Got it, good!
They better back down. They deserved to get the shit kicked out of them for this crap. Dial down the ego AP. You've been seriously fucking up on a lot of fronts lately, and this is WAY out of the scope of your power. Citizens still have rights in this country. It's called fair use - look it up, bitch.
Login or Register to post comments.